The Clapton CAAC laments the further erosion of the retail parade. We find the CGI confusing as it does not accurately reflect the drawings. In any event the applicant has not taken the opportunity to design a facade which improves the streetscape and instead proposes leaving it in a sorry state.

2017/4082 and 2017/409915 Clapton Square E5 8HPExternal alterations including removal of cables on front elevation, replacement of front door and other associated changes to the front elevation, replacement and refurbishment of windows, installation of a new window on southern elevation, installation of new stairs into the rear garden including associated changes to the retaining wall as well as internal alterations to lower ground, ground, first, second and third floor levels. (Raymond Okot 020 8356 8080)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2017/3958Land to the rear of No.13 Clapton Common E5 9AAErection of part two and part three storey (plus basement) dwelling house on land at rear of 13 Clapton Common and fronting Forburg Road, (Nick Bovaird 0208 356 8291)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2016/196373 Clapton Common E5 9AARe-development of existing site (including demolition of existing building) to build a 3 storey (plus basement) synagogue (Class D1) including associated hard and soft landscaping to the front of the building (Amended Drawings Received). (Louise Smith 0208 356 8061)

The Clapton CAAC has reviewed the additional detail and changes since it's last comments (23 Sep 2016) on the scheme as originally submitted, where significant obstacles and concerns were raised for a site which has great prominence from a large number of vantage points along and across Clapton Common, and which sits adjacent to a statutory listed heritage asset. In this context detailed design is critical and the additional detail and amendment now provided are an improvement, though still lacking.

The revisions are not clearly presented in the new drawings and no revised D&A is provided to explain them. Little effort continues to be afforded to illustrating the context, in particular the adjacent statutory listed terrace and Clapton Common.

The front elevation (NE) is a restrained improvement over the submission scheme, and subject to samples of materials and more precise details of the design, is likely to be acceptable in its own right.

The large flank wall elevation (NW) is also improved overall, but the detailed drawings do not reflect the reality of construction nor how the facade will weather or deal with birds, so more details and samples will need to be supplied an approved before work commences.

The feature elevation (SE) continues to trouble the CAAC, particularly in relation to its setting alongside the listed terrace and the prominence of the proposed synagogue in long views. In particular the issue of light pollution and the additional prominence the proposal gives the elevation are not resolved. It is clear that the applicant is specifically intent on devising a landmark building whose prominence is to be highlighted through both design and lighting but this gives little regard to the appropriateness in this sensitive setting. The CGI (for the earlier iteration) misrepresent the colour and luminescence of the lights and capturing such detail through condition is likely to be difficult. It is possible that a scheme of blinds, whose use in the hours of darkness was conditioned, might be devised - but in any event further details of the lighting scheme - both internally and externally, establishing colour temp and brightness, along with any pollution mitigation - needs to be reserved by condition.

However, taken holistically, three highly visible elevations represent three very different treatments. The lack of any tangible relationship between them or to the immediate built context is troubling and results in an incoherent design that would be an extremely obtrusive form of development.

The development should be car-free, particularly in an area where exceptionally short trips are common and attendant blockages and parking pressures are rife. A well-designed, covered and screened bin store might take the place of the proposed car parking spaces and implementation along with a management plan, could be conditioned and discharged before the use commences. We suggest that a further condition requires that the bike racks be installed as per plans before the site use commences, and for the duration of the use to safeguard the implementation. We fear without such a condition the racks will not be installed and additional ad-hoc car parking will, instead, be created.

2017/4067 and 2017/40728 Clapton Terrace E5 9BWExternal and internal alterations to listed building to include replacement rear fenestration and holes to rear for air vents, flues and pipes and internal subdividing walls to second and third floor flats. (Nick Bovaird 0208 356 8291)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2017/4036383-385 Mare Street E8 1HYErection of first and second-floor extensions to provide 3 no. self-contained flats (2 X 1 bed and 1 X 3 bed). Revisions to ground floor rear access from Gould Terrace with the provision of separate entrances to retail and residential units. Associated changes to both front and rear facades including new windows and doors and facade treatment. Provision of living roof and roof lights to the building. (Gerard Livett 020 8356 8398)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal, but in view of ongoing issues with refuse in the area, the occupation of the unit should be conditional upon ensure the bin store doors are left closed and in operable condition at all times, except when the containers are being filled or emptied.

The Clapton CAAC finds the supplied drawings poor in terms of quality and accuracy. In detail, the existing drawings appear to show a prominent box frame visible in elevation - this is unlikely to be an accurate representation of the current frames where the box appears to be recessed within the brickwork and is a detail that must be retained to maintain the classical proportions and visual weight of the timber box sash window frames.

The Clapton CAAC observes that larger homes extensions permitted development rights do not apply in a Conservation Area. Were this same application to be made for Householder Planning Consent we would object on the grounds of it being overdevelopment.